Subscription Center
Jul 25, 2008 05:42 PM | 20
There has been a raging debate over whether cell phones – or more specifically electromagnetic radiation that they emit – up a person's cancer risk. The latest chapter: Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, this week warned consumers to limit exposure to cell phone radiation—and alerted parents to beware of possible effects on their kids' developing brains. Although the evidence remains controversial, he is convinced that the radiation poses a risk to human health. As he pointed out, a number of countries, including France, Germany and India, have already issued such warnings to their citizens.
Herberman outlined 10 ways to reduce exposure. Among them: reduce cell phone use, use a hands-free earpiece, switch ears while chatting to limit radiation concentration in one spot, and avoid using mobile phones in public places to limit second-hand radiation.
In particular, he cautions parents about the possible effects of cell phone radiation on children. He indicates that kids should only be allowed to use these devices in cases of emergency, as their developing brains are more likely to be susceptible to possible side effects. He said recent studies indicate that “living tissue is vulnerable to electromagnetic fields within the frequency bands used by cell phones.”
Worried? Perhaps you should be. But that doesn’t mean you should hang up your cell phone altogether, Herberman says. As he noted in his memo, "Our society will no longer do without cell phones." But he believes there's enough biological data to indicate that consumers should take precautions.
Herberman also called on the cell phone industry to improve current technologies to limit radiation risks.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not respond to requests for comment, but the agency says on its website that no clear link exists between cell phone usage and cancer.
Tags:
cell phone,
cancer
More News Blog:
Next: Could Wildfires Save the Arctic?
Previous: Scrolling “electronic ink” to hit newsstands this fall
See what we're tweeting about
Myrmecos What's next? Gliding ants that turn into berries? Oh, wait.. http://t.co/7gbdOTHDko Myrmecos Yet another ant-plant mutualism. http://t.co/iDR33A7oXE This one involves a carnivorous plant and an ant that swims. Seriously.
DrBondar WOW! RT @manometbanding: White-eyed Vireo http://t.co/exDLKUdRVo
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
20 Comments
Add CommentYou show no evidence here, none at all. Just because one wacko professor says something is so, especially with the emotional KID in danger message does not make something true. Before I make my mind up and wrap my head with alluminum foil I would like to see definitive double blind controlled study that shows a danger exists with an R value something other than .5
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJH
Dr. George Carlo, former chief scientist of the wireless industry's multi-million dollar safety research program, had concluded that cell phone radiation poses health risks. You can watch a video of his efforts to warn the public here (watch 'Cell Phone War' video):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cellphone-health.com
And here he presents the findings that reveal how the information-carrying radio waves from cell phones and other wireless technology are causing biological harm:
http://www.cellphone-health.com/cell-phone-radiation-harm.htm
No evidence supports Heberman's claim. And tskam1's links are to websites selling bogus EM-"inhibitors" to the gullible public. SciAm should not be publishing these unsupported claims as if there is new evidence unless and until new evidence is actually published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsence of evidence is no evidence of absence. Smoking wasn't purported to be harmful when it became ubiquitous. I'm leaning in the direction of "better safe than sorry."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUse a hands free headset, that will leave both hands free for arm waving or note taking or coffee drinking or driving - end of story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is Herberman's evidence? This article refers to "one of the best health studies yet." Has his evidence refuted this study?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.livescience.com/health/061212_bad_phones.html
Guys, think it through logically. Cancer is caused by high-energy ionizing radiation past the blue end of the spectrum. Cellphones transmit using NON-ionizing microwaves, which are low energy and past the red end of the spectrum. See the link to the EM spectrum below. In order for microwaves to be harmful, visible light and infrared light would also need to be harmful, but they not. It's the radiation at the UV end and beyond that is ionizing and can damage DNA. All microwaves can do is cause a little localized heating. You nuke your food, right? You're merely warming it up, not "irradiating" it in a damaging fashion. If expensive studies are done well I'm sure they will bear out results supporting my reasoning, but that'll be money down the drain. Cellphones DO NOT cause cancer. They simply use the wrong type of radiation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tinyurl.com/6cc5qt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a little bit better news article on what Dr. Heberman really said and meant.
http://tinyurl.com/5lguld
He has credentials in oncology and rather than dismissing him based on what the news-entertainment media report, dig a little.
Here is the crux of the issue ezcerpted from that article.
****
...
"We shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Dr Herberman said.
"I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use."
His warning came even though no major academic study has yet found any evidence that exposure to mobile phone signals affects brain function and the US Food and Drug Administration has said that, if there is a risk, it is probably very small.
Dr Heberman, however, said there was a "growing body of literature" which linked long-term mobile phone use with adverse health effects, including cancer.
Last September, UK experts found mobile phones do not cause health problems if used for up to 10 years but a long-term cancer risk could not be ruled out.
Researchers with the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme found a "very slight hint" of increased incidences of brain tumours among longer-term users.
That data was "at the borderline of statistical significance" but needed to be investigated further, they said.
...
*****
Whether the electromagnetic radiation from a cell phone is intense enough to affect human brains (especially when in the developing stage at a tender age) has been a controversial issue, albeit still open for debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome scientific research reports assert that the effect could be minimal and harmless, while others argue otherwise. One thing for sure, it is a long term effect. Whatever danger it may involve could only be observed after 30 to 40 years. Nonetheless, prevention is always better than cure, as succinctly pointed out by the writer.
One would tend to suspect if the gigantic industry plays any part in influencing the outcome of such research.
(Tan Boon Tee)
I am frankly amazed that the Scientific American would implicitly endorse this statement about dangers of cell phone use since there is no evidence presented. Contrary to the implications that electromagnetic radiation might be bad for the brain, the evidence is that it is beneficial, not harmful. We've been using electromagnetic radiation for years to increase blood flow in other areas that need the healing effects of increased blood flow. Increased brain weight associated with cell phone usage is probably beneficial, not harmful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is unclear to me how this can be a problem to only cell phone users. Cell phone "radiation" is electromagnetic radiation as are light, radio, television, solar wind, gravity waves and microwaves including the signals we send to and from sattellites (and probably countless others I have forgotten and others undiscovered). That said, those waves are coursing through our bodies 24 hours a day. How, pray tell, do cell phone signals, one of these electromagnetic waves, manage to harm us more than anything else coursing through our bodies and heads? Even if we don't use a cell phone, others do and these signals don't follow a straight line to a cell tower, they raadiate out spherically from the source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the popular media focus of potential damage from cell phones, not to mention cell masts, has been on campus. What about neurological damage, such as that found in this recent study? "Upregulation of Specific mRNA Levels in Rat Brain after cell phone exposure" in Electromagnetic biology and medicine. Vol. 27, Issue 2. June 2008. pp. 147-154.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI intended to write "cancer" - the end stage, not "campus."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, and it's probably impossible with current measurement techniques, to scientifically determine the cumulative effects on the human body.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTimothyPilgrim - you say "Cellphones DO NOT cause cancer" because the radiation is non-ionising. Is non-ionising radiation the only cause of cancer? Sticking a reasonably powerful transmitter up against your skull will affect brain tissue, at least by localised heating. Do we know this has no causal link to cancer or other illness? Is lack of a known mechanism equal to "it can't exist"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTimothyPilgrim - you conclude "Cellphones DO NOT cause cancer", because microwaves are non-ionising. Sticking a moderately powerful transmitter up against your skill does affect brain tissue, at least by localised heating. Do we know enough to say this cannot cause illness? Is lack of a known mechanism equal to "it cannot happen"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople are not going to believe this article because there are case studies depicted in this article. Secondly even it is a warning no one will be giviving up the cell phone as it is the integral part of part of modern technology as well as the fastest communication meanns. In some countries especially developng or underdeveloped countries these kind technical devices are being considered as the symbol of social and economical status.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that cell phone dangers pose a serious risk... check out this product review that measures the radiation coming from a regular cell phone!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://emfreview.com/product-reviews/aircom.html
I agree, parents of children should be especially concerned...
It is surprising to see that Sci. Am. carries an article on "Anecdotal Evidence" and this blog in the same issue. If you look at the evidence given for the harm of radiofrequency it not more than anecdotal, and references at variance with the authors opinion are just suppressed. A really scientific discussion has to be more balanced. The fact that an authors is a good oncologist does not make him a specialist in microwave research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis discussion sounds a lot like early concerns about smoking. Doctors , individuals, and researchers were saying, we think there are links to cancer. There was much anecdotal evidence. The industries who paid for their own studies said it wasn't so. We found out later that they had suppressed all kinds of evidence. It was down played in the media, and twenty years later , after the evidence was overwhelming and millions of deaths it was shown to be conclusive. Does this sound like the global warming discussion of the past twenty five years? Does this sound like the excellent discussion in the above article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's doesn't take a college degree to suspect that introducing an electromagnetic energy field close to the head has an effect. How much, what it is, how long it takes needs more research. But that it has an effect is the law of nature. Any parent who allows a young child to use a cell phone needs to be informed, and encouraged to stop the use, or allow it only in case of emergencies.
We know there are effects from x-rays, radiation,